cross-posted from: https://infosec.pub/post/42694823

Trump has no power to “decree” that voters must present ID or to end mail-in balloting. But that doesn’t mean he can’t at least try both. Under the Insurrection Act or some other dusty statute, he can declare a state of emergency. Then he can decide that said state permits, nay requires, him to take extraordinary measures. On October 5, say, that might mean outlawing early voting. By October 13, it might mean no mail-in voting. By October 29, a reminder that all voters must present ID to vote. And by Sunday, November 1, two days before the election—an announcement that all these “reasonable” measures have alas failed, and he is now forced, against his will, to postpone the election.

  • Sunflier@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2·
    33 minutes ago

    Is this title suggesting that the only good Republican is a dead Republican? It sounds like this title is suggesting that the only good Republican is a dead Republican. I wonder if the only good Republican is a dead Republican. I’m going to need to think on whether the only good Republican is a dead Republican. Does anyone else have any thoughts on whether the only good Republican is a dead Republican to help me contemplate on whether the only good Republican is a dead Republican?

      • D_C@sh.itjust.works
        2·
        28 minutes ago

        I have no idea why you were downvoted. If it weren’t for the tRUMP voters AND the non/protest voters then the orange child rapist wouldn’t have won.

        (Though all that could’ve been avoided if biden had pushed for prosecutions on the insurrection stuff and top secret documents stuff almost immediately. Instead he tried the old route of “it’s time to heal”, which NEVER works. NEVER.)

  • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works
    47·
    8 hours ago

    I mean, before he become president the first time he literally said that he would only accept the results if he wins.

    I too hate how obvious and predictable it all was but people finally getting it is surprisingly also very annoying.

  • NutWrench@lemmy.mlEnglish
    29·
    10 hours ago

    Trump doesn’t get to say shit about how the States run their elections. Even if he “Hereby Do Dee-clares it.”

    • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      5 hours ago

      He and Pete Hegseth have no legal say in how the Scouts should run their affairs, too, but see what happened today?

      • NutWrench@lemmy.mlEnglish
        3·
        5 hours ago

        Trump says a lot of stupid crap. What you do is ignore him. Or say, “no” to him. But never give up without a fight.

    • Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world
      30·
      10 hours ago

      He isn’t technically able to do most of the stuff he does do. He just does it, and then time passes and then it gets declared retroactively illegal… but it still happened. He’ll probably get punished at some point… right?

      • ThomasWilliams@lemmy.world
        5·
        7 hours ago

        The states run elections, lease the voting places and employ all the staff.

        Unless the federal govt replaces all of them, just waving a chicken leg around and declaring stuff won’t do anything.

        • Zexks@lemmy.world
          4·
          6 hours ago

          Or you know he could put ice officers outside strategic polls and block anyone he doesnt like from entering.

          • nile_istic@lemmy.world
            1·
            12 minutes ago

            We both outnumber and out-gun ICE by an absolutely astounding margin. ICE posts at our polling places, ICE gets crushed.

    • ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.worldEnglish
      9·
      8 hours ago

      That’s true. The states can constitutionally tell him to go fuck himself. But I read a key phrase in another article that I tried to find and can’t, to the effect that his plan involves ally states.

      So lets say all but five states tell him to fuck himself and hold their elections. Five do not. They have just thrown the entire election and its results into massive constitutional confusion, with lawsuits for years to come while he just sits up there shitting his Depends and grinning. And it would work: whatever anyone says should be the answer, someone else will sue over.

      Elections are a huge power grab for anyone who wants even a little power. No one is going to let their piece of the pie go easily, whether that means holding an election or not holding an election, or fighting those who want the opposite, in court, forever.

      All he has to do is introduce confusion, and then it will be up to SCOTUS to decide.

      And SCOTUS is as corrupt as the day is long.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    1502·
    13 hours ago

    Back in 2024, Kamala Harris and the Democrats struggled to convince voters that a second Donald Trump term would constitute a serious threat to democracy. We can debate the effectiveness of her, and their, rhetoric. But on a certain level, it was a hard argument to make because it was hypothetical.

    On what planet was it hypothetical.

    Honestly. It’s like everyone’s still using fucking Windows. Fuck levels critical.

    • doesit@sh.itjust.works
      21·
      11 hours ago

      It’s like people don’t understand what happened and almost happened on J6.
      If all fails he’ll definitely will do this again.

    • johncandy1812@lemmy.caEnglish
      58·
      13 hours ago

      He couldn’t have made his intentions any clearer. I think people just figured the Senate, SCOTUS and the DOJ would keep him in check. They didn’t see him taking control of those to this extent.

      Now people are about to find out just how much control he has over the military.

      • nile_istic@lemmy.world
        1·
        1 minute ago

        Frankly, I don’t really blame people for having faith in the guardrails. Generally speaking, whenever any truly progressive legislation (often labeled as “extremism”) has been pushed forward, those guardrails have come up real quick. I understand why people thought that that would hold true for extremism in any direction. But it… well, doesn’t.

      • SabinStargem@lemmy.todayEnglish
        2·
        4 hours ago

        Considering how abusive he is towards members of the military, I think he will find himself frog-marched out of office.

    • bearboiblake@pawb.socialEnglish
      1597·
      13 hours ago

      “Trust me”, said pro-genocide candidate Kamala Harris, who shows no interest in reigning in the billionaires and corporations rushing to support fascism. “I’m better than Trump. I support US imperialism politely.”

      • Hapankaali@lemmy.world
        453·
        12 hours ago

        “Yes, of course I will choose the pile of rusty nails dipped in horseshit over the stale sandwich for lunch. As the sandwich is not very appealing, this seems like the logical choice,” said the well-balanced, rationally thinking individual.

        • bearboiblake@pawb.socialEnglish
          32·
          4 hours ago

          The point isn’t to choose the rusty nails, it’s to settle for better than a stale sandwich. I thought that was obvious. You deserve a candidate who actually represents your interests.

          • Hapankaali@lemmy.world
            2·
            24 minutes ago

            Okay sure, definitely a good idea to change the menu, and make it so that there can be more than just 2 options.

            But you still have to choose something to eat today.

          • MrVilliam@sh.itjust.works
            524·
            12 hours ago

            Harris was imperialist and colonialist, but not fascist. It’s ludicrous to equivocate trump and Harris as both being fascist.

            And in any case, yeah, vote for progressives in primaries. I know that there wasn’t a real primary for 24, but that has more to do with Biden not stepping aside soon enough than anything else. Dem voters are getting tired of establishment enablers, and DNC leadership is no longer interfering to pick favorites (see Mamdani’s victory) so we could actually see progressives taking over the party.

            You’re painting a false equivalency (both sides the same) and pining for other options without actually offering a solution for how to get there, implying that we just stay home and not vote at all. You’re the problem. If you don’t like the fascism, vote against the fascist. If you don’t like the non fascist option, tough shit because there may not be a next time if the fascist wins (and he did and here we are talking about suspending elections). If you actually want better Democrats in the general for the 26 elections, you need to start paying attention now because it’s primary season already, and you can and should be donating/volunteering for who you believe in.

            If you’re being serious about wanting an option outside of the two parties, only one of them is open to things like ranked choice to get rid of first past the post and eliminating the electoral college so that it’s people and not land doing the voting. Spoiler alert: convincing people to withhold their vote helps the other guys win, and they’re thrilled to keep it a two party system. You may not like somebody milquetoast like Biden, but he course corrected and arrested the slip into fascism while getting some progressive stuff through. Not enough, but it’s fucking silly to say that Harris was the same as Biden and also Harris is the same as trump.

            • cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.mlEnglish
              717·
              10 hours ago

              Imperialists and colonialists share the same beliefs as fascists. They just disagree on whether or not it’s time to turn the violence of the imperialist machine in on itself. As the decline of America continues, eventually the imperialist are guaranteed to relent and side with the fascists.

              On top of that the DNC no legal obligation to run democratic primaries. Regardless of whatever wins democratic socialists have made, they’re so far from actually wielding enough power to meaningfully reform the American system. If they had any chance of success under the current rules then the DNC would just change them. The obvious conclusion is that voting alone will not stop the rise of fascism. It literally the least you can possible do.

            • flandish@lemmy.world
              922·
              12 hours ago

              They are both capitalists and will therefore both trend toward fascim, albeit at different rates. But that trend toward is a very slippery one way street with entire world wars being necessary to only temporarily revert it and try new ways.

              This is why it’s such a depressing mindfuck that the dems would rather remain the way they are instead of change. They want it. Just in a gaslit “guess we gotta be fasc” manner instead of trump’s “we are” manner.

      • beelzebum@lemmy.world
        304·
        13 hours ago

        Ive noticed that these guys are trying to start the same moral panic shit among Democratic voters to demotivate them this time around. For example, with Talarico - a key senate seat flip.

        • Optional@lemmy.world
          143·
          12 hours ago

          It’s definitely going to happen again. So-called moderate trump voters and our own LemLeft have learned nothing.

        • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
          1033·
          13 hours ago

          Shove it up your ass. We tried to save the Democrats from themselves in 2024 and people like you ran static interference so that the Dems could run on “more of the same” and ultimately lose the election.

          • null@piefed.nullspace.lolEnglish
            225·
            12 hours ago

            Funny, I don’t remember seeing you promoting any progressive candidate for the the primaries.

            Saw you wokescolding Kamala voters a lot though…

            Must just be that you do the first part in communities I’m not in.

            • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
              710·
              11 hours ago

              Funny, I don’t remember seeing you promoting any progressive candidate for the the primaries.

              My entire comment history is right there buddy. Its all in there. Go take a look instead of relying on your clearly faulty memory.

              Saw you wokescolding Kamala voters a lot though…

              I love that word. I’m going to take that word.

              And again, instead of reacting to your impression of what you think I said, go through my comment history and find examples of that. If you need tools to better access them, I can provide that to you. I’ve got my entire comment history also available in JSON format, if that makes it easier for you, and you also have no excuse. In other words, put the fuck up or shut the fuck up, because I know precisely what I’ve said this entire time, and you are responding to your emotional impression of what I’ve said, not actually what I’ve said.

              My criticisms have been explicitly focused on the maneuvers of the party, the Biden campaign, the Harris campaign, and those who shield the parties or the campaigns from criticism

              All of this is based on the central thesis I offer, which is:

              • That its functionally and practically impossible to move an electorate over the course of a campaign which only lasts a couple of months. There are no mechanisms or tools available to campaigns to do so. Focusing critiques on individual voters when there is no function mechanism to change the minds of millions of voters is counter productive and loses you voters. The Harris campaign lost 6 million votes while not understanding this.

              • The only path to winning an election is to move a candidate to a set of popular enough policy positions they win the majority of factions necessary to capture the electoral college.

              • Any one saying that voters just need to “do better” while defending or apologizing for Candidates or campaigns with unelectable policy positions is a dangerous provocateur who, by shielding campaigns or politicians from criticism is operating on behalf of the opposition.

              If a candidate holds a policy position which will prevent them from winning the election, voting for them isn’t “strategic”; its irrelevant. The only options you have is to move politicians to electable positions. There is no other way to win.

              • null@piefed.nullspace.lolEnglish
                133·
                11 hours ago

                Hit me with some keywords I can use to find the candidate who’s campaign you vocally and regularly supported through the DNC primaries in that JSON dump.

            • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
              53·
              8 hours ago

              Yes. We gave the Democrats a straight-forward path to winning. They simply needed to shift their policy on Gaza. We communicated that here, there, everywhere. We got kicked out of the DNC convention saying it. We said it before Biden stepped down, after. We wrote articles about it. We did podcasts. We wrote editorials. We made it so incredibly clear, that there is really no excuse for not knowing that it was a choice on the part of the campaign to maintain an electable position.

  • MyPetCumsock@hilariouschaos.comEnglish
    151·
    9 hours ago

    That’s if they even lose. They’ve taken away a lot from me already and conservifascits are loving it. Gen Z swung red because they thought this was an ideology to get behind. You’re supposed to trust in God for your healthcare plan if you weren’t born rich. This is a Christian nation. I fucking hate my life.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        11·
        9 hours ago

        A trial run without guns, at that.

        This time they will be heavily armed and won’t wait until people have voted.

        They’ll have ICE and other federal oppression agencies preventing eligible voters from exercising their rights.

        Primarily nonwhite people and people who have ever been observed protesting injustice, but no vote is safe under fascism.

  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    2711·
    13 hours ago

    Back in 2024, Kamala Harris and the Democrats struggled to convince voters that a second Donald Trump term would constitute a serious threat to democracy.

    I don’t think anyone in the political space failed to recognize it as an existential threat; its that Harris didn’t campaign as if it was an existential threat.

    If it was such an existential threat, why would you actively disenfranchise your base?

    If it was such an existential threat, why would you say things like “I would do nothing fundamentally different than the current administration”, when the administration was DEEPLY unpopular?

    If it was such an existential threat, why did you spend 1.5 billion dollars trying to court voters which you have never been able to get, specifically by elevating some of the least popular voices within their own party (eg, Liz Cheney and Republican voters)?

    Nothing about how the Harris campaign operated beyond selecting Walz as VP demonstrated that they recognized Trump as an existential threat to Democracy. Voices were, in the course of the campaign, CLAMORING, for them to do better. They didn’t listen and they chose the approaches they did.

      • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
        123·
        11 hours ago

        Because they didn’t realize how many idiotic left leaning reactionary centrists Americans there are.

        ftfy.

      • cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.mlEnglish
        94·
        10 hours ago

        They knew that their base wouldn’t turn out for a candidate who supported a genocide. They decided to run one anyways. They thought making sure Israel could continue its genocide was more important than winning against Trump. But yeah sure blame the people who aren’t sociopaths.

        • null@piefed.nullspace.lolEnglish
          32·
          10 hours ago

          What’s the number of voters who would have voted for Kamala if she had opposed the genocide but didn’t?

          • cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.mlEnglish
            81·
            10 hours ago

            I can’t give you a specific estimate but the DNC tried to burry a report that showed Kamala’s support for Israel cost her key votes. That should tell you what you need to know.

            That said you can also just look at the vote differences between 2020 and 2024. Kamala lost more votes than Trump gained relative to the 2020 vote counts. It’s clear from those results that democratic turnout was depressed in 2024 when the admin’s policy towards Gaza was one of the most obvious divides between democratic leadership and democratic voters.

            https://www.axios.com/2026/02/22/dnc-2024-autopsy-harris-gaza

          • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            2·
            8 hours ago

            None of them recognize that opposition to Israel has only recently become a slightly mainstream position. She would have lost far more voters than she would have gained had she strongly supported Palestine. These people are fucking idiots.

            They tried to appeal to moderates instead, and it failed. There was no position on the genocide that would have helped Democrats in 2024.

  • 2piradians@lemmy.worldEnglish
    9·
    12 hours ago

    6 years ago I posted on FB that any qualms over mail-in ballots should have already been raised and in the process of being addressed ahead of the 2020 election. A large portion of my friends and family were MAGA, or at least dem-hating, so they inundated me with conspiracy theory rubbish.

    I knew he would pull some shit, somehow. Then J6 came to pass.

    So now he’s blatantly planning to fuck with the election 8 months ahead of time. Nothing has changed in terms of protecting voters, and it’s as predictable now as it was in 2020.

    But I think the fucker underestimates us and his base on this. As serious as 2A advocates are about guns, there are more of us by orders of magnitude who value our voting rights.

    • kmartburrito@lemmy.world
      1·
      40 minutes ago

      There are also MANY of us that value our voting rights that are also 2A advocates. I’m not saying you’re wrong, just to be clear.

  • Sanctus@anarchist.nexusEnglish
    121·
    12 hours ago

    That means we have until October to bring down every data center in the country. Get to work.